I dunno---I've never heard of anyone doing this. Most of the time it's really, really broad generalizations. It would seem to me that even if you took it back to something as simple as yeast, you could jump from one organism (on paper) to another---but doing it with Darwin-style methods.
Where is your point?
It has been shown again and again that mutation is happening. It has been shown that selection culls most mutations. It has been shown that taxonomic trees based on gene sequences and those based on anatomy are very similar.
In other words: ALL we know about the genome of all species for which it has been sequenced is consistent with evolution.
There is NO known discrepancy between evolution theory and observed results that would invalidate the theory. An intelligent designer (creator) is redundant, so why assume there is one?
dmz et al requesting a mutation by mutation "proof" will need to wait just a little longer... the problem with asking to do this with any species is the question of what individual stands as the standard. while this might not be such a big deal with larger animals, the differences between two e. coli strains could be as obvious as night and day and yet they are the same species. The concept of bacterial strains is by its very essence a proof in principle of what you all ask for....
The arguments I predict are as follows:
Scientists: these two "standard" species have these differences... frame shift mutation in genes a b c, point mutations in d e f, duplication and modification in g h i.
Creationist: "Standard" species, you just picked the two individuals that closely matched and forgot all about substrain bjk which has the ability to leap tall buildings.
Scientists: we choose the species based upon the criterea laid out in the xyz conference.
Creationist: a conference filled with people who believe in evolution.
Scientists: would you have us sequence all strains of these two bacteria species?
Creationist: yes.
Scientists: that will take forever and give no more information than we currently have.
Creationist: but it is what is necessary to prove evolution.
There are any number of such arguments possible...
I wonder whether creationist know that gene manipulation is done regularly in labs all over the world now. that point mutations can be introduced in almost every single position in criticial proteins and the cells will still be viable.
We need from the creationists several things, we need them to define the terms (in this case) viable, species and the standard conditions under which two organisms which are obviously related but different species.
You've gotta admit, when some people insist that "the Bible is the literal word of God and must be followed diligently" for *some* things (homosexuality springs to mind), and then you've also got this particular bad acid trip in there... er... it seems a bit, oh what's that word. Oh yeah. Insane.
You've gotta admit, when some people insist that "the Bible is the literal word of God and must be followed diligently" for *some* things (homosexuality springs to mind), and then you've also got this particular bad acid trip in there... er... it seems a bit, oh what's that word. Oh yeah. Insane.
Possibly so, but one thing to consider is, if you take it literally, as I recall there is no place where it says a woman can be a lesbian, it just says no man can lay with another man.
Possibly so, but one thing to consider is, if you take it literally, as I recall there is no place where it says a woman can be a lesbian, it just says no man can lay with another man.
Which also literally means it's okay for two guys to have sex standing up.
So all those Israelis are just imposters, and the real children of Israel are based in Brooklyn.
Ug, you're telling me. I live in the Mecca of JoHo's. Lucky for us there is an unwritten rule that they don't bother the residents of my neighborhood. Hell, there is even a phone number you can call you complain about the ones on the corners and they're told to stop.
However, I always ask a JoHo when I see one doing their thing, if there are only 144,000 spots in heaven and there are 4 million JoHos, do they think that they have a shot to get in? You can see the brainwashing wear off for just a second when they think about it.
As for the topic at hand. The only way I would accept creationism is for God to give me his powers. I want complete omnipotence over everything. Other than that I can see no logical conclusion besides God being a physiological construction of weak minded humans too scared to deal with reality. Is evolution right? Shit, I don't know, I'm not a biologist. Is Creationism right? Not a chance in hell and all believers should be locked to up prevent them from hurting themselves or people around them.
dmz et al........................(in this case) viable, species and the standard conditions under which two organisms which are obviously related but different species.
I wouldn't do it with Species, I'd do it with Class, Order, etc. Speciation is has been estabished as fact. Why not go back to yeast(?)---go back to something rudimentary and start looking for how one got to the other. If Evolution is correct there are millions of now extinct lifeforms waiting to be rediscovered---that fill these gaps.
go back to something rudimentary and start looking for how one got to the other. If Evolution is correct there are millions of now extinct lifeforms waiting to be rediscovered---that fill these gaps.
Where is the relevance of this experiment? What can we learn from it that we cannot learn from mathematical descriptions of mutation rates et al?
Recreating millions of extinct lifeforms proves exactly what?
I wouldn't do it with Species, I'd do it with Class, Order, etc. Speciation is has been estabished as fact. Why not go back to yeast(?)---go back to something rudimentary and start looking for how one got to the other. If Evolution is correct there are millions of now extinct lifeforms waiting to be rediscovered---that fill these gaps.
You're operating under the assumption that all life on earth right now originated on earth. So your assumption may be a self fulfilling prophecy in that it may in fact be impossible to find the one thing that all life evolved from, because it's possible not all life evolved from the same thing.
There is debate as to wether or not microbes can exist on incoming celestial bodies and wether they can survive entry into the atmosphere and survive once they've hit ground. If this in fact can be shown to be possible, creationists will always have their manufactured "out", because it will show that life can't all be traced back to one thing, as they want to be proven.
Evolution may be incomplete, or flawed, or both....but creationism, (as of Genesis taken literally) is a beyond-the-fringe degree of an extraodinary claim. Is there anyevidence for it, anywhere?
What kind of "creation" are they talking about anyway? The creation of life, the creation of the Earth, or the creation of the Universe?
I have posted this link (below) in a previous thread, but it is more than relevant. And hilarious btw.
This article explains where that 4004BC figure came from, as regards the age of the Earth. (!!) Some creationists insist that this figure is the undeniable truth and is a cornerstone for some, but the current knowledge re. cosmology, geology and other relevant sciences suggests this figure is beyond ludicrous.
Why Christians have latched onto these literal (and absurd) interpretations of parts of Genesis is strange, for they have absolutely nothing to do with the teachings of Jesus.
Several former posts had it right about the Bible, but I'll fill in the blanks. (btw, this is only to clear up some common Bible issues for y'alls use):
a) The people who quote the Bible the most also tend to have studied it, well, not enough to make their claims.
I have read the Bible through several times and continue to study it, and there's no way even I'ld claim to know it thoroughly. First, it has been subject to repeated translation. Second, most of it can be taken on multiple levels, and therefore has many different meanings.
b) The Bible was not intended to be read literally. Last of all the book of Revelation.
Revelation is a letter from John (the one who was blinded on his way to Damascus to kill him some Christians) to the "seven churches" outlining seven things they needed to fix, and how to fix them, followed by seven visions. It is NOT an outlining of the end of the world, as many think. As religion was _highly_ discouraged by the Roman empire, John had to disguise his letter in symbols. The way the visions are presented in church (including the JoHo interpretation) is not the way they were meant to be taken. Actually, no one really knows anymore. We can only make educated guesses. So there's no point to asking who are the choosen 100-odd grand.
c) Exhibit B: The Bible was not intended to be read literally: The book of John -- a big, fat joke.
Jesus is poking fun at EVERYBODY. But very few people see it because they want to take the Bible seriously. And then Jesus told us to "be as the little children." Do little kids take things seriously? NO. Lets go play!
d) Not even the Bible can decide on a creation story. There are two of them.
In the first chapter of Genesis, Man was created "in the image and likeness of God". In the second, after "a mist [illusion] rose from the ground," man was created of the dust of the ground. Huh? I don't think the point of these stories was to tell us how we were created.
e) Here's an entirely different tack, straight out of the Bible: There is no such thing as time, so when would we have been created? Or when will we encounter apocolypse? We wouldn't. We simply exist. "Thy Kingdom come" (Lord's Prayer). Heaven is NOW. And heaven lasts forever, right? Sound too Buddhist for you? Sorry. All faiths overlap somewhere. (note: this is my personal interpretation of the Bible. I invite you to dispute it.)
What would it take for me to dump the idea of creationism? Someone needs to figure out how brains work. Then we can say the Bible's wrong. God doesn't take care of us. Neurons do. Until then, I lean on a higher power.
If you would like citations, feel free to ask. Same if you'ld like to know more -- although you could just read the Bible for yourself. Completely apart from any religion, it's an interesting piece of literature. Same with the Koran. And the Vidas...
Several former posts had it right about the Bible, but I'll fill in the blanks. (btw, this is only to clear up some common Bible issues for y'alls use):
an explanation of the necessity to have gills at some point of ontogenesis in humans.
Are you sure that they're gill remnants and not something else? (cue flashbacks to the Star Trek episode where Barclay became a spider for one of the scariest tea-time telly moments of my youth).
Quote:
Why not have some humility, and admit that the Bible was written by people
And read by fallible people.
Quote:
I'm not so sure that God's a member of this forum, Marc.
Check It out. Registered 29/6/2002. Not many posts though.
Quote:
What would it take for me to dump the idea of creationism? Someone needs to figure out how brains work
What level of detail do you need, or do you mean consciousness? Neurons don't take care of you, they are (physical rather than abstract) you.
Comments
Originally posted by dmz
I dunno---I've never heard of anyone doing this. Most of the time it's really, really broad generalizations. It would seem to me that even if you took it back to something as simple as yeast, you could jump from one organism (on paper) to another---but doing it with Darwin-style methods.
Where is your point?
It has been shown again and again that mutation is happening. It has been shown that selection culls most mutations. It has been shown that taxonomic trees based on gene sequences and those based on anatomy are very similar.
In other words: ALL we know about the genome of all species for which it has been sequenced is consistent with evolution.
There is NO known discrepancy between evolution theory and observed results that would invalidate the theory. An intelligent designer (creator) is redundant, so why assume there is one?
Originally posted by Whisper
Are you talking about proving that every intermediary form between two separate species is viable? Yeah, I'd like to see that too.
I think what you're asking for is proof of *A* viable path, not *EVERY* viable path, correct?
Gotta love the language of logic...
Originally posted by Kickaha
I think what you're asking for is proof of *A* viable path, not *EVERY* viable path, correct?
Gotta love the language of logic...
Correct. It's not a proof thing for me (at this point), I'm just curious.
Though it has some distasteful language I find it pretty funny
The arguments I predict are as follows:
Scientists: these two "standard" species have these differences... frame shift mutation in genes a b c, point mutations in d e f, duplication and modification in g h i.
Creationist: "Standard" species, you just picked the two individuals that closely matched and forgot all about substrain bjk which has the ability to leap tall buildings.
Scientists: we choose the species based upon the criterea laid out in the xyz conference.
Creationist: a conference filled with people who believe in evolution.
Scientists: would you have us sequence all strains of these two bacteria species?
Creationist: yes.
Scientists: that will take forever and give no more information than we currently have.
Creationist: but it is what is necessary to prove evolution.
There are any number of such arguments possible...
I wonder whether creationist know that gene manipulation is done regularly in labs all over the world now. that point mutations can be introduced in almost every single position in criticial proteins and the cells will still be viable.
We need from the creationists several things, we need them to define the terms (in this case) viable, species and the standard conditions under which two organisms which are obviously related but different species.
*hee*
You've gotta admit, when some people insist that "the Bible is the literal word of God and must be followed diligently" for *some* things (homosexuality springs to mind), and then you've also got this particular bad acid trip in there... er... it seems a bit, oh what's that word. Oh yeah. Insane.
Originally posted by Kickaha
You've gotta admit, when some people insist that "the Bible is the literal word of God and must be followed diligently" for *some* things (homosexuality springs to mind), and then you've also got this particular bad acid trip in there... er... it seems a bit, oh what's that word. Oh yeah. Insane.
Possibly so, but one thing to consider is, if you take it literally, as I recall there is no place where it says a woman can be a lesbian, it just says no man can lay with another man.
Originally posted by kraig911
Possibly so, but one thing to consider is, if you take it literally, as I recall there is no place where it says a woman can be a lesbian, it just says no man can lay with another man.
Which also literally means it's okay for two guys to have sex standing up.
Originally posted by Kickaha
So all those Israelis are just imposters, and the real children of Israel are based in Brooklyn.
Ug, you're telling me. I live in the Mecca of JoHo's. Lucky for us there is an unwritten rule that they don't bother the residents of my neighborhood. Hell, there is even a phone number you can call you complain about the ones on the corners and they're told to stop.
However, I always ask a JoHo when I see one doing their thing, if there are only 144,000 spots in heaven and there are 4 million JoHos, do they think that they have a shot to get in? You can see the brainwashing wear off for just a second when they think about it.
As for the topic at hand. The only way I would accept creationism is for God to give me his powers. I want complete omnipotence over everything. Other than that I can see no logical conclusion besides God being a physiological construction of weak minded humans too scared to deal with reality. Is evolution right? Shit, I don't know, I'm not a biologist. Is Creationism right? Not a chance in hell and all believers should be locked to up prevent them from hurting themselves or people around them.
Originally posted by billybobsky
dmz et al........................(in this case) viable, species and the standard conditions under which two organisms which are obviously related but different species.
I wouldn't do it with Species, I'd do it with Class, Order, etc. Speciation is has been estabished as fact. Why not go back to yeast(?)---go back to something rudimentary and start looking for how one got to the other. If Evolution is correct there are millions of now extinct lifeforms waiting to be rediscovered---that fill these gaps.
Originally posted by dmz
go back to something rudimentary and start looking for how one got to the other. If Evolution is correct there are millions of now extinct lifeforms waiting to be rediscovered---that fill these gaps.
Where is the relevance of this experiment? What can we learn from it that we cannot learn from mathematical descriptions of mutation rates et al?
Recreating millions of extinct lifeforms proves exactly what?
Originally posted by dmz
I wouldn't do it with Species, I'd do it with Class, Order, etc. Speciation is has been estabished as fact. Why not go back to yeast(?)---go back to something rudimentary and start looking for how one got to the other. If Evolution is correct there are millions of now extinct lifeforms waiting to be rediscovered---that fill these gaps.
You're operating under the assumption that all life on earth right now originated on earth. So your assumption may be a self fulfilling prophecy in that it may in fact be impossible to find the one thing that all life evolved from, because it's possible not all life evolved from the same thing.
There is debate as to wether or not microbes can exist on incoming celestial bodies and wether they can survive entry into the atmosphere and survive once they've hit ground. If this in fact can be shown to be possible, creationists will always have their manufactured "out", because it will show that life can't all be traced back to one thing, as they want to be proven.
"extraordinary claims require extraordinarty evidence"
Evolution may be incomplete, or flawed, or both....but creationism, (as of Genesis taken literally) is a beyond-the-fringe degree of an extraodinary claim. Is there anyevidence for it, anywhere?
What kind of "creation" are they talking about anyway? The creation of life, the creation of the Earth, or the creation of the Universe?
I have posted this link (below) in a previous thread, but it is more than relevant. And hilarious btw.
http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/ussher.htm
This article explains where that 4004BC figure came from, as regards the age of the Earth. (!!) Some creationists insist that this figure is the undeniable truth and is a cornerstone for some, but the current knowledge re. cosmology, geology and other relevant sciences suggests this figure is beyond ludicrous.
Why Christians have latched onto these literal (and absurd) interpretations of parts of Genesis is strange, for they have absolutely nothing to do with the teachings of Jesus.
a) The people who quote the Bible the most also tend to have studied it, well, not enough to make their claims.
I have read the Bible through several times and continue to study it, and there's no way even I'ld claim to know it thoroughly. First, it has been subject to repeated translation. Second, most of it can be taken on multiple levels, and therefore has many different meanings.
b) The Bible was not intended to be read literally. Last of all the book of Revelation.
Revelation is a letter from John (the one who was blinded on his way to Damascus to kill him some Christians) to the "seven churches" outlining seven things they needed to fix, and how to fix them, followed by seven visions. It is NOT an outlining of the end of the world, as many think. As religion was _highly_ discouraged by the Roman empire, John had to disguise his letter in symbols. The way the visions are presented in church (including the JoHo interpretation) is not the way they were meant to be taken. Actually, no one really knows anymore. We can only make educated guesses. So there's no point to asking who are the choosen 100-odd grand.
c) Exhibit B: The Bible was not intended to be read literally: The book of John -- a big, fat joke.
Jesus is poking fun at EVERYBODY. But very few people see it because they want to take the Bible seriously. And then Jesus told us to "be as the little children." Do little kids take things seriously? NO. Lets go play!
d) Not even the Bible can decide on a creation story. There are two of them.
In the first chapter of Genesis, Man was created "in the image and likeness of God". In the second, after "a mist [illusion] rose from the ground," man was created of the dust of the ground. Huh? I don't think the point of these stories was to tell us how we were created.
e) Here's an entirely different tack, straight out of the Bible: There is no such thing as time, so when would we have been created? Or when will we encounter apocolypse? We wouldn't. We simply exist. "Thy Kingdom come" (Lord's Prayer). Heaven is NOW. And heaven lasts forever, right? Sound too Buddhist for you? Sorry. All faiths overlap somewhere. (note: this is my personal interpretation of the Bible. I invite you to dispute it.)
What would it take for me to dump the idea of creationism? Someone needs to figure out how brains work. Then we can say the Bible's wrong. God doesn't take care of us. Neurons do. Until then, I lean on a higher power.
If you would like citations, feel free to ask. Same if you'ld like to know more -- although you could just read the Bible for yourself. Completely apart from any religion, it's an interesting piece of literature. Same with the Koran. And the Vidas...
Originally posted by kage2050
Several former posts had it right about the Bible, but I'll fill in the blanks. (btw, this is only to clear up some common Bible issues for y'alls use):
Oh dude great clarification!!
Cool.
an explanation of the necessity to have gills at some point of ontogenesis in humans.
Are you sure that they're gill remnants and not something else? (cue flashbacks to the Star Trek episode where Barclay became a spider for one of the scariest tea-time telly moments of my youth).
Why not have some humility, and admit that the Bible was written by people
And read by fallible people.
I'm not so sure that God's a member of this forum, Marc.
Check It out. Registered 29/6/2002. Not many posts though.
What would it take for me to dump the idea of creationism? Someone needs to figure out how brains work
What level of detail do you need, or do you mean consciousness? Neurons don't take care of you, they are (physical rather than abstract) you.
Dead. Spot. On. Excellent post.